Jesus Christ

Offending posts removed...

Please keep it clean gentlemen...

I recognize the spirit in which it was said, but this is still a public forum...

Leandros Von wrote:

sidvkili wrote: one already given before in the very discussion, old son

But by someone else, not me, I wasn't throwing it in there to open it for discussion, just stating that the overall impression I get from it is that it doesn't matter so why is it that we care so much about it ??

The question we should be asking ourselves is not "what colour was jesus", but "why do we place such importance on his ethnic origin".

To me the answer is a simple one, because we have been raised in a society that has not yet learned to be tolerant of other races, sure we are making progress in this regard but take America for example, there were still folk who thought it outrageous that a Black Man should be President... you may think yourself not racist but if your own daughter come home wearing a Burka and introducing her new Islamic boyfriend I'm sure there would be a pang of "wait a minute this isn't right" this is not what I had intended for my daughter, I myself know that this is the case for me at least, there would be a point of me feeling racial hatred born of my ego, this is due to me growing up in a time where anyone of color was still looked upon as different, I can't believe looking back now that my gran / grandad / stepfather would without thinking answer "she's run away with a darkie" when I questioned where my mother was.

I can acknowledge this though, this racist seed planted in my persona when i was younger allowing myself insight into where I am wrong in my thinking, giving me the opportunity to adjust my attitude towards the subject to the one where I judge the man on his character and the way he treats my daughter, not his creed or the color of his skin.

I think sometimes to do the right thing we have to admit to ourselves that our thinking is wrong, it's only when we stop to reflect that we see the bigger picture.

But this however has veered of topic so I'll leave you guys to your discussion.

What? Okay... I want you to look into the debate of the ethnicity of christ, find me one of the participating scholars, priests etc and point out his racism for me.... You want to know why the main reason it gets argued? Because you seem to think it's this giant sociological issue, as a social worker and a far leftist myself... it ain't. The debate started and has maintained as a debate of validity of HISTORY, lol. This is just another debate along with Mark's record versus Phillup's, neomarcion critique of the volumes to Theolophilus etc etc.

They usually deal with if Christ existed at all or if events pertaining to said sod ever happened at all. The ethnicity of christ is just a factor.

If somebody came up to me and said " you're a black guy", I'd say " sorry, nope." Is it because I don't like black people? Or that I'm intolerant of them? Or is it just clearing up facts?


Oh and I get the example but islam wouldn't bother me lol. I've been to several prayers at a masjid during College lol. Still friends with one or two.

sidvkili wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Leandros Von wrote: I don't think what race Jesus was matters, you only have to look at the bible...

Galatians 3:28. (KJV).
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

and then jump to

JEDI BELIEVE
"In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin."

Both the Christian and Jediist teachings say the same thing, we are ONE and the same all bound within the force (or christ) as you will.

"Jesus was a Jew so we need to kill all Muslims, because one of the Five Pillars of Islam is the extermination of Jews." I wish I was kidding.

none of the five pillars says to kill all jews

Of course not. I'm just playing on the ignorance of Evangelical Christian Zionists.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Would the Cathloc Churches be any different today or have a different relationship with the other Middle East Faiths if the image of Christ reflected his DNA heritage?

Absolutely. While Senan has the point that it shouldn't make a difference, being human, it would make a difference. It's likely that Jesus had dark skin and black hair. Not the general visual you find in paintings of Jesus, who looks like an American white guy.

Do ya think it would help the reliigions get along better? I do.

I know I'm a few days late to the party, but I don't think it would help religions get along better. I do think it would help race relations, though.

I don't think it would help either. The church would be having internal conflicts of its own because Abrahamic religions and racism (as in tribal, in- and out-group thining) kind of go hand in hand to an alarming degree (just like misogynism, narcissism and egocentrism, misanthropy, somehow still self-hatred along with several other unhealthy or evil notions - again, to a degree; an alarming one, mind you, but not all the way, I guess...).

Besides, there are core doctrinal issues between the three (or four, if you count Baha'i in) that couldn't be reconciled even if the Christians' favourite scapegoat were depicted in the way he most likely would have been. If the unbeliever is not an enemy of God or an agent of Satan by definition, then what remains of the religion whose only appeal is salvation from the evil that being a non-believer supposedly results in?
If you build an intrinsicly hostile religion like that, there will not come the point at which the religion remains in place but the conflicts it commands the religious to have would go away.

I would like to politely disagree with you on most of those points, Gisteron, because the description of Abrahamic faiths as present in your post present problems that are not inherent to the teachings of those faiths inherently, and are the result of the darkness potential in human social interactions twisting and corrupting said teachings.

Long time no see Gist. Good to see you again. Now that this is all done, let's murder your argument


Also how is racism, ego centrism, misogynism, narcisism, misanthropy and etc evil notions are inherent to Christianity? If you're going to make a statement, provide evidence otherwise I'm going to treat this like angry biased subjectivity. Which going by context, isn't far off. Taking into account apathetic theological evangelism which is the second largest accountable form of evangelism in Christianity has no traits of racism or race elitism. The issue on misogyny is hardly existent in Christianity as it is portrayed. I covered that in the pope thread, btw
Also, the abrahamic ecumenical relationships? They always say " keep theology out of it, we will never agree" and they build their relationship on the doctrine and mission they have in common, which has been demonstrated greatly in recent relations between wesleyan christians and sunni muslims. So the doctrine isn't the problem for one thing, it's the theology. For another they will not let theology get in the way of ecumenical relationships and build it on the vast dogma and doctrine they do share in common.

Also the religion of Christianity was actually built upon the eucharist which was a symbol of devotion and sacrifice, not penal substitution btw. It was actually very similar to " sacrifice and bliss".

I didn't follow this thread story either. . . .

Although . . . .i have been told three stories, from three different wise men, in different years, in different circles and with different lineage, about this name . . .

The first wise man, was a woman raised in a christian family of teachers and masons. . she said "it is best think of Christ as meaning "spirit" not as a last name

The second wise man was Jewish lineage, raised in Judaism and indoctrinated in the traditional Kabbalah ways . . he said to me: Christ is not his last name. . . .christians were around thousands of years before he was born or before a church was made. . . . the meaning of christ awareness and the thousands and thousands of name equal to it are beyond what gets limited to "christians"

The third wise man of native american descent, a trained and anonymous shaman, historian, veteran, and devotee/teacher to the disadvantaged. . . . said. . . "look at the time of the romans and the first E. Council and the founding of their church, they gave him a new name. . .his name was Jesus of Nazareth. . that says a lot"

interesting . . .

thanks steamboat, these stories as one . . inspired by your post
for me personally. . .am seeing aquaducts like sithy veins lol
more importantly is this era . . .what is transmitted and what is left to find

Christ comes from the Greek Χριστός, meaning "anointed." It is the translation of a Hebrew title with the same meaning (מָשִׁיחַ, messiah), and refers to the anointing of oil common to sanctification and appointment to sacred office. In this way, it's an endorsement of his spiritual authority and a title, not a name. In everyday speech, he would've been the Aramaic equivalent of Yeshua bar Maryam ("Jesus, son of Mary"), the Nazarene ("...of Nazareth"), or the Galilean ("...of Galilee"), because while many Yeshuas came from those places, he made a name for himself relatively quickly.

I'm currently reading a book called "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth." Written by Reza Aslan, a Muslim who converted to Christianity and back again, it looks at a de-mystified, non-messianic historical Jesus through the lens of the historical and political climate of Judea at the time. Very interesting, very eye-opening. I adore it.

Mareeka wrote: I didn't follow this thread story either. . . .

Although . . . .i have been told three stories, from three different wise men, in different years, in different circles and with different lineage, about this name . . .

The first wise man, was a woman raised in a christian family of teachers and masons. . she said "it is best think of Christ as meaning "spirit" not as a last name

The second wise man was Jewish lineage, raised in Judaism and indoctrinated in the traditional Kabbalah ways . . he said to me: Christ is not his last name. . . .christians were around thousands of years before he was born or before a church was made. . . . the meaning of christ awareness and the thousands and thousands of name equal to it are beyond what gets limited to "christians"

The third wise man of native american descent, a trained and anonymous shaman, historian, veteran, and devotee/teacher to the disadvantaged. . . . said. . . "look at the time of the romans and the first E. Council and the founding of their church, they gave him a new name. . .his name was Jesus of Nazareth. . that says a lot"

interesting . . .

thanks steamboat, these stories as one . . inspired by your post
for me personally. . .am seeing aquaducts like sithy veins lol
more importantly is this era . . .what is transmitted and what is left to find

The second guy was wrong, Christian as a term refers to the devotee of a church recognised at least 33 years after Christ was born in Antioch. He's thinking of Nazarenes and Persians ( they are not Christian, they are "messianic"). A Christian will always be of Nazarene and persian traditions, but not all persians and nazarenes are of the christian tradition. And no, lol " Christ" wasn't his last name....

" hey have you seen the Christs? The wife just got pregnant out of nowhere....says it was the holy spirit, poor las"

The church was also not founded at the first ecumenical council, lol. How the hell do you have a christian ecumenical council without a church? The Church was fully established in terms of the five holy sees at that point. Asides, the statement he made kinda backed up my initial argument lol.

the content of the second is not placed in time, or culturally or religions . . . it is about people aligning themselves with the Force . .

the third is about the romans purpose for founding a church . . . . .

Mareeka wrote: the content of the second is not placed in time, or culturally or religions . . . it is about people aligning themselves with the Force . .

the third is about the romans purpose for founding a church . . . . .

If I understand what you mean then nobody "aligned themselves with the force" in said fashion until 33 AD in Antioch haha.

As for the third...what? The roman's didn't "found" the church and you were referencing the ecumenical councils...which were held by the holy see of Constantinople, not Rome.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the purpose of said foundation was to establish a church in Rome ( that's literally it...) and the theological approach to Christ in the Church of Rome only held racial importance when Marcion offered his critique.

re: way before the year and in many schools since . . again the content

regarding the third . . . the circle was broader . . .and not isolated

Mareeka wrote: re: way before the year and in many schools since . . again the content

regarding the third . . . the circle was broader . . .and not isolated

Thing is though, if you're going to claim "content" as we have defined it and located, please provide where else. Because I have done so and also refuted that which was previously labelled. How was it wrong to refute that? or Is there more "content" in terms of christians? Because what schools? Where was it seen before 33 AD?

And I don't understand what you mean about the third one....

the reference to content is reference to the content (center) of the post with three stories

perhaps having a different focal point, the content of the one post is obscured. . not sure . . could be other reasons?

yes, think in terms of a broader meaning to the word Christ . . before and after 33 AD and read again the three stories . . tell me if anything pops or not

i do see the don't understand . .but an explanation may not be needed if it the one post is looked at differently

Mareeka wrote: the reference to content is reference to the content (center) of the post with three stories

perhaps having a different focal point, the content of the one post is obscured. . not sure . . could be other reasons?

yes, think in terms of a broader meaning to the word Christ . . before and after 33 AD and read again the three stories . . tell me if anything pops or not

i do see the don't understand . .but an explanation may not be needed if it the one post is looked at differently

Ah, I see. Thing is it was one of the first things I addressed in my critique... Was my argument wrong?

i don't know . . not sure why it is being asked . .

Mareeka wrote: i don't know . . not sure why it is being asked . .

Because I argued how he recognised and defined christians